As the 2024 presidential election heats up with prominent candidates like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in the race, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) has made headlines by declaring that Vice President Harris, along with other notable figures, might be ineligible to hold the office of President according to the U.S. Constitution.
NFRA’s document claims
The NFRA’s stance, outlined in a recent policy document, draws on the controversial Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court ruling of 1857, which infamously declared that enslaved individuals could not be considered U.S. citizens. This ruling, a product of its time, was later overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments, which abolished slavery and established citizenship rights for all persons born in the United States. Despite this historical context, the NFRA’s document suggests that the ruling’s interpretation still has relevance in discussions about presidential eligibility.
According to the NFRA’s document, which was adopted at their national convention last October, only individuals who meet a strict “natural born citizen” criterion should be eligible for the presidency. This interpretation is influenced by the opinions of Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who argued that a “natural born citizen” must be born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents at the time of birth. The NFRA contends that figures like former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, as well as Kamala Harris, do not meet this criterion.
Did the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA) really unanimously adopt the position that Kamala Harris is ineligible to be President based on… the Dred Scott decision?!
h/t @LorenCollins pic.twitter.com/9LZsDfWdlM
— Andrew Fleischman (@ASFleischman) August 23, 2024
Attorney Andrew Fleischman first highlighted the NFRA’s controversial stance on social media, questioning the use of the Dred Scott decision in modern eligibility debates. The post received significant backlash, with critics pointing out that invoking a ruling widely condemned for its racism and historical inaccuracy is problematic. Comments on the post likened the NFRA’s arguments to outdated technology, suggesting that using such historical precedents to challenge current eligibility standards is as outmoded as expecting a flip phone to connect to 5G networks.
NFRA President Alex Johnson defends
NFRA President Alex Johnson defended the group’s position in a statement to The Independent, criticizing Harris as a “faux Democrat” and alleging that her policies are akin to those seen in totalitarian regimes. Johnson’s comments extended to a broader critique of Harris’s political affiliations and the Democratic Party, which he accused of exploiting voter ignorance and promoting divisive policies.
The NFRA’s position, if taken to its logical conclusion, would disqualify several past U.S. presidents, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, based on their interpretation of constitutional eligibility criteria.
It is important to note that the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision is widely regarded by legal scholars as one of the Supreme Court’s most egregious rulings. The 13th and 14th Amendments, which were ratified to correct the injustices of the Dred Scott decision, explicitly affirm the citizenship of all persons born or naturalized in the United States, effectively overturning the earlier ruling’s implications.
